On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 08:26:00 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 17 March 2014 22:18, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Friday, March 14, 2014 at 04:02:33 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> This implementation keeps the 64 bytes of workspace in registers rather
> >> than on the stack, eliminating most of
On 17 March 2014 22:18, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Friday, March 14, 2014 at 04:02:33 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> This implementation keeps the 64 bytes of workspace in registers rather
>> than on the stack, eliminating most of the loads and stores, and reducing
>> the instruction count by about 25%
On Friday, March 14, 2014 at 04:02:33 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> This implementation keeps the 64 bytes of workspace in registers rather
> than on the stack, eliminating most of the loads and stores, and reducing
> the instruction count by about 25%.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel
> ---
> Hel
This implementation keeps the 64 bytes of workspace in registers rather than
on the stack, eliminating most of the loads and stores, and reducing the
instruction count by about 25%.
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel
---
Hello all,
No performance numbers I am allowed to share, unfortunately, so if an